There are two "schools" of ice cream thought: 1) traditional custard (with eggs) and 2) Philadelphia (no eggs). Most of the ice cream you eat in the US is of variety #1 (or intended to be like it).
However eggs are expensive, and so eggs have been replaced with food-science substitutes. But in the higher-end ice creams, eggs are present.
For example, here is the ingredient list of my strawberry Haagen-Dazs ice cream: CREAM, SKIM MILK, SUGAR, STRAWBERRIES, EGG YOLKS.
I've really never heard of anyone claiming that custard was ice cream. I consider those to be two separate things. Traditional ice cream to me is of the Breyers variety, containing milk, cream, sugar and flavoring. No eggs.
jiltjouster is right. Traditional ice cream contains milk and/or cream, yolks, sugar, vanilla. Philadelphia style has no yolk. (Blanchir 300g yolks with 300g sugar, temper in 1L each hot milk and cream, bring back to 160˚F, chill immediately, then churn.) Sorbet or sorbetto is more lightly churned (has little overrun [defined as the % of volume increase due to air churning compared to the original mix]). Breyers? Philly-style. Baskin-Robins? Apparently, Philly-style.
Now, to clarify this from a biology perspective, only some of these points are bad.
The main baddy here is the sugar content. One cup of sugar will f**k you right up. That amount slamming your pancreas will damage it, in one exposure. Doing this often, even with the 50 gram exposures present in a can of coke, will give you diabetes in a few years.
About the fat. The current recommended percentage is based on the belief that we should be eating 10% calories from fat. A healthier recommendation is about 30%. These have to be real fats. Real animal saturated fat, and real vegetable and plant fats. Nothing artificial. The animal fats will contain essential vitamins and will provide raw energy and heat, the plant fats (NOT vegetable oil) such as from nuts and seeds will provide essential unsaturated fatty acids, the essential building blocks of various cells in the body.
Assuming the ingredients here are true to nature, the tremendous saturated fat content here is from coconut oil, the main fat present in Oreo cookies. This is actually very very healthy fat and you can eat 1000% DV of this saturated fat fraction and only see the many benefits. Look up coconut oil to see why. Fat is more complicated than saturated and unsaturated. There are hundreds of different fat molecules and each has a function, beneficial or detrimental.
Unfortunately even Oreo cookies have slipped and now they modify this fat. It is now artificial. It is now twisted in shape, deformed. The cells in the body are stupid and see one side of this fat as being the type they need to build a new brain cell receptor, for example. They put this fat molecule into place, but the other end of it is deformed. Now, the receptor doesn't work correctly, and either doesn't trigger when it should, or misfires randomly. This causes a cascade of problems all throughout the body. This is the product of hydrogenating and modifying fats.
This content of calcium is horrible for your bones too. Supplemental calcium is not actually healthy nor is it necessary. In fact it causes premature bone degeneration leading to fractures early on in life.
The sodium content too, what the hell? There is not four grams of salt in this thing. The sodium is present in the form of flavor enhancers and preservatives and who knows what other crap.
I am looking but can't find an actual ingredients list. What I can say for sure is that there is fake stuff in it for sure considering the sodium content.
Now regarding coconut oil being good.
Yes of course - BUT they don't use pure coconut oil - that would be too expensive. They will press plant oil through grinded coconut and have the oil pick up the coconut flavour. That way they get a higher amount of 'coconut flavour' then if they were to extract the 'natural coconut oil' only (and even then they would diffuse it on plant oil to increase the amount).
So, no, that amount of fat is not good.
"Unfortunately even Oreo cookies have slipped and now they modify this fat. It is now artificial. It is now twisted in shape, deformed. The cells in the body are stupid and see one side of this fat as being the type they need to build a new brain cell receptor, for example. " Could you explain to the class please how one fatty acid or tryglyceride that was derived from an artificial source and the same molecule derived from a 'healthy, real' source are different? No they aren't. THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. Please stop talking about this stuff like you know what you are talking about, because I assure you I do, and I have the credentials to back myself up (PhD biomedical science). I've never heard such ridiculous nonsense in my life.
I never said there are artificial replicas of natural fats in the cookie. That is a rather absurd statement. Extracted or synthesized, the same molecule is the same molecule, if the triglyceride was actually synthesized there.
I am trying to dig up ingredients for Oreos, and I can't find it exactly (and the issue is compounded further by the fact that the smaller pack of Oreos actually has different ingredients than the larger pack) but I believe the ingredient is "partially hydrogenated coconut oil" which is what I meant by "modified". This turns the normal healthy fatty acid distribution into something gross. This is made worse by the addition of soybean oil if I remember correctly. Furthermore, TBHQ is added to the oil as a preservative.
If Oreos had normal virgin cold-pressed coconut oil in them, they wouldn't require preservatives at all, except maybe in the cookie part. But they could add coconut oil to that too. After cutting out artificial flavor and the other crap, the pack would maybe cost 10-20% more and I'd actually eat them.
The distorted fatty acids have gotten to you, PhD.
Gibbie, a PhD in biomedical research doesn't give you much credibility when it comes to nutrition at the rate the field is changing based on new evidence. An easy to read bit from an unscientific source (I'll let you do the legwork on that bit yourself, I suggest Dr. Cordain's research on the subject, because I'm too lazy):
“Trans fats by definition are not fully saturated. They contain at least one double bond in the trans configuration. Unsaturated fats with cis double bond configurations have lower melting points than comparable saturated and trans fatty acids because the cis double bond causes a bend in the molecule, limiting intermolecular attractive forces. This bend is not present in saturated fats or unsaturated fats with only trans double bonds”
The point isn't so much the source, but if the actual molecular structure is altered. Not all artificial sources of regular fat are evil, but you can bet the vast majority are.
Wrong kind of shellfish. The calcium that is found in a lot of calcium supplements comes from the shells of mollusks (clams, oysters, mussels, snails), not crustaceans (shrimp, crabs, lobsters). The shells of crustaceans are made of the polysaccaride chitin:
That article is about really current research though; the common sources of calcium they mention but don't name are probably egg shells and mollusk shells. Crustacean calcium is not on the market yet.
So does Baskin Robbins not sell it any more? They still have nutrition facts for other shakes (including a description of what it means to have crustaceans) http://www.baskinrobbins.com/Beverages/shakes.aspx
2600 calories... that's 2600 calories... in a single 32 oz. cup, that you can eat in about 10 minutes, with 208% of the total fat an average healthy person should consume in one day. This is legal?
Well governments do regulate what people put into their bodies. illegal drugs are banned, smoking is only allowed in certain areas, not to mention the amount of anti-smoking advertising that goes on the packaging. Alcohol (in Ontario) can only be bought in certain stores and is illegal for minors to buy any. Canadian medical care spends millions upon millions treating cancer patients who are there because they are chain smokers. "Personal Accountability" doesn't really mean anything when the rest of society is picking up the tab to keep your sorry ass alive when you put yourself into that position by making poor health choices.
However what's worry some about this product (and similar ones) is that kids don't need permission to purchase it, and kids are less likely to even glance at the "nutritional values" attributed to it. I've seen kids on the bus drinking bottles of coke, energy drinks, and gatoraide on their way to school in the morning. Kids routinely buying drinks like this could be pushing themselves to obesity, which again adds to heart problems, circulatory problems, and all the other health problems that go with obesity. Which in turn will be covered by Health Care. So as I don't agree that the government should be regulating every facite of our lives, when foods that are this outrageously unhealthy, there should be a limit to it.
i bet ghost stories freak you out, or when there is said to be a haunted room, you'd be afraid, but fear not. don't be afraid of your own shadow, dare to be courageous, seize the day, think happy thoughts, rainbows and sunshine.
Better yet, how does any company consciously produce something so freaking horrible for you. Its like me making a better shotgun that makes suicides easier for shorter armed people. Its just freaking wrong.
That is today's modern 'Russian Roulette'. The difference being instead of 1:6 chances of getting your head blown off, you have a 1:1 chance of obtaining diabetes.
Is that real? The only one I could find on BR website was a Mint Oreo Shake and it didn't even come close to the nutritional facts here: http://flic.kr/p/aiidxK
mecharabbitSep 1, 2011
Mmm...chocolate lobster shake.
po43292Sep 1, 2011
Contains crustaceans? WTF.
tanethSep 1, 2011
No eggs? But there's ice cream!
Fyrefly7Sep 1, 2011
What kind of messed up ice cream are you eating with eggs in it?
tanethSep 1, 2011
uhh... the "ice cream" kind... look it up.
SamJamGooseSep 1, 2011
There is no eggs in ice cream. "Cream" is dairy, not eggs.
jiltjousterSep 2, 2011
There are two "schools" of ice cream thought: 1) traditional custard (with eggs) and 2) Philadelphia (no eggs). Most of the ice cream you eat in the US is of variety #1 (or intended to be like it).
However eggs are expensive, and so eggs have been replaced with food-science substitutes. But in the higher-end ice creams, eggs are present.
For example, here is the ingredient list of my strawberry Haagen-Dazs ice cream: CREAM, SKIM MILK, SUGAR, STRAWBERRIES, EGG YOLKS.
Fyrefly7Sep 2, 2011
I've really never heard of anyone claiming that custard was ice cream. I consider those to be two separate things. Traditional ice cream to me is of the Breyers variety, containing milk, cream, sugar and flavoring. No eggs.
shmajentSep 3, 2011
jiltjouster is right. Traditional ice cream contains milk and/or cream, yolks, sugar, vanilla. Philadelphia style has no yolk. (Blanchir 300g yolks with 300g sugar, temper in 1L each hot milk and cream, bring back to 160˚F, chill immediately, then churn.) Sorbet or sorbetto is more lightly churned (has little overrun [defined as the % of volume increase due to air churning compared to the original mix]). Breyers? Philly-style. Baskin-Robins? Apparently, Philly-style.
m00c0wSep 1, 2011
Now, to clarify this from a biology perspective, only some of these points are bad.
The main baddy here is the sugar content. One cup of sugar will f**k you right up. That amount slamming your pancreas will damage it, in one exposure. Doing this often, even with the 50 gram exposures present in a can of coke, will give you diabetes in a few years.
About the fat. The current recommended percentage is based on the belief that we should be eating 10% calories from fat. A healthier recommendation is about 30%. These have to be real fats. Real animal saturated fat, and real vegetable and plant fats. Nothing artificial. The animal fats will contain essential vitamins and will provide raw energy and heat, the plant fats (NOT vegetable oil) such as from nuts and seeds will provide essential unsaturated fatty acids, the essential building blocks of various cells in the body.
Assuming the ingredients here are true to nature, the tremendous saturated fat content here is from coconut oil, the main fat present in Oreo cookies. This is actually very very healthy fat and you can eat 1000% DV of this saturated fat fraction and only see the many benefits. Look up coconut oil to see why. Fat is more complicated than saturated and unsaturated. There are hundreds of different fat molecules and each has a function, beneficial or detrimental.
Unfortunately even Oreo cookies have slipped and now they modify this fat. It is now artificial. It is now twisted in shape, deformed. The cells in the body are stupid and see one side of this fat as being the type they need to build a new brain cell receptor, for example. They put this fat molecule into place, but the other end of it is deformed. Now, the receptor doesn't work correctly, and either doesn't trigger when it should, or misfires randomly. This causes a cascade of problems all throughout the body. This is the product of hydrogenating and modifying fats.
This content of calcium is horrible for your bones too. Supplemental calcium is not actually healthy nor is it necessary. In fact it causes premature bone degeneration leading to fractures early on in life.
The sodium content too, what the hell? There is not four grams of salt in this thing. The sodium is present in the form of flavor enhancers and preservatives and who knows what other crap.
I am looking but can't find an actual ingredients list. What I can say for sure is that there is fake stuff in it for sure considering the sodium content.
murxSep 1, 2011
Now regarding coconut oil being good.
Yes of course - BUT they don't use pure coconut oil - that would be too expensive. They will press plant oil through grinded coconut and have the oil pick up the coconut flavour. That way they get a higher amount of 'coconut flavour' then if they were to extract the 'natural coconut oil' only (and even then they would diffuse it on plant oil to increase the amount).
So, no, that amount of fat is not good.
gibbie99Sep 1, 2011
"Unfortunately even Oreo cookies have slipped and now they modify this fat. It is now artificial. It is now twisted in shape, deformed. The cells in the body are stupid and see one side of this fat as being the type they need to build a new brain cell receptor, for example. " Could you explain to the class please how one fatty acid or tryglyceride that was derived from an artificial source and the same molecule derived from a 'healthy, real' source are different? No they aren't. THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. Please stop talking about this stuff like you know what you are talking about, because I assure you I do, and I have the credentials to back myself up (PhD biomedical science). I've never heard such ridiculous nonsense in my life.
m00c0wSep 4, 2011
I never said there are artificial replicas of natural fats in the cookie. That is a rather absurd statement. Extracted or synthesized, the same molecule is the same molecule, if the triglyceride was actually synthesized there.
I am trying to dig up ingredients for Oreos, and I can't find it exactly (and the issue is compounded further by the fact that the smaller pack of Oreos actually has different ingredients than the larger pack) but I believe the ingredient is "partially hydrogenated coconut oil" which is what I meant by "modified". This turns the normal healthy fatty acid distribution into something gross. This is made worse by the addition of soybean oil if I remember correctly. Furthermore, TBHQ is added to the oil as a preservative.
If Oreos had normal virgin cold-pressed coconut oil in them, they wouldn't require preservatives at all, except maybe in the cookie part. But they could add coconut oil to that too. After cutting out artificial flavor and the other crap, the pack would maybe cost 10-20% more and I'd actually eat them.
The distorted fatty acids have gotten to you, PhD.
twistedwriterSep 1, 2011
Gibbie, a PhD in biomedical research doesn't give you much credibility when it comes to nutrition at the rate the field is changing based on new evidence. An easy to read bit from an unscientific source (I'll let you do the legwork on that bit yourself, I suggest Dr. Cordain's research on the subject, because I'm too lazy):
“Trans fats by definition are not fully saturated. They contain at least one double bond in the trans configuration. Unsaturated fats with cis double bond configurations have lower melting points than comparable saturated and trans fatty acids because the cis double bond causes a bend in the molecule, limiting intermolecular attractive forces. This bend is not present in saturated fats or unsaturated fats with only trans double bonds”
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-are-trans-fats-bad/
The point isn't so much the source, but if the actual molecular structure is altered. Not all artificial sources of regular fat are evil, but you can bet the vast majority are.
ren1999Sep 1, 2011
Thank you for the update on the dangers of some of these ingredients. Some of this is all new to me.
spencerhawkinsSep 2, 2011
How is that bachelors of health science treating you?
Sincerely, a chemist.
m00k0wNov 18, 2011
FTR, if that was directed at me, I'm 12 and what is this.
I'm just parroting stuff from various studies and their conclusions. I'm an engineer actually.
publiclurkerAug 31, 2011
Can I order my shake without crustaceans, please?
grammerpantsSep 1, 2011
Nope that's where you're getting your omega 3 from. Why the hell we need it in a drink I have no idea.
UncleTogieSep 1, 2011
Actually, it's where all the calcium comes from; shellfish are commonly used for calcium supplements.
berkanaSep 1, 2011
Wrong kind of shellfish. The calcium that is found in a lot of calcium supplements comes from the shells of mollusks (clams, oysters, mussels, snails), not crustaceans (shrimp, crabs, lobsters). The shells of crustaceans are made of the polysaccaride chitin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chitin
UncleTogieSep 1, 2011
Are you sure? Check this out:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-calcium-supplement-derived-crustacean-shells.html
berkanaSep 2, 2011
Interesting.
That article is about really current research though; the common sources of calcium they mention but don't name are probably egg shells and mollusk shells. Crustacean calcium is not on the market yet.
alex4u2nvSep 1, 2011
you've got to be chitin me!
sorry couldn't refrain from saying that.
alex4u2nvSep 1, 2011
Probably give you the chits also!
pabloz1Sep 1, 2011
Next revision will be deep fried.
darth0Sep 1, 2011
Deep fried milkshake, hmmm....... state fair, here I come!
sly7765Sep 1, 2011
With numbers like that you know that shake is good as hell!
johnomazzSep 1, 2011
I know, I want one right now, but my heart is holding me hostage.
son0fhobsSep 1, 2011
Check out the nutrition facts for the bakery goods at your coffee shop. Not exactly crustaceans, but on par with the other ingredients.
berkanaSep 1, 2011
Chitin, a protein from crustacean shells, is sometimes used to give texture to edible colloids.
Milkshakes are edible colloids.
berkanaSep 1, 2011
Oops. Not a protein; chitin is a polysaccaride.
murxSep 1, 2011
Don't worry, no one would have noticed :P
davidsherman73Sep 1, 2011
73 Weight watchers points plus and 62 points on the old plan.... That's a whole days worth of food in a glass...
hanrahanSep 1, 2011
More like 2 days. Most people only end up with 30-35/day to start with. You would likely be a candidate for lap-band etc if you started with 73/day.
cryinlionSep 1, 2011
Beefcake! BEEFCAKE!!
rkstarSep 1, 2011
So does Baskin Robbins not sell it any more? They still have nutrition facts for other shakes (including a description of what it means to have crustaceans) http://www.baskinrobbins.com/Beverages/shakes.aspx
tronbotSep 1, 2011
OOOOLLLLLLDDDD!
"The OREO offerings are available nationwide for a limited time,
while supplies last, July 7, 2008 through the beginning of September 2008."
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=12&ved=0CB0QFjABOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.dunkindonuts.com%2Farticle_download.cfm%3Farticle_id%3D1021&rct=j&q=Baskin%20robbins%20oreo%20shake&ei=NwNfTtSDBefc0QHm58TxAg&usg=AFQjCNGXZhEQ178hFa4vo2YYVrnui-1tGQ
And fake pic as there were no crustaceans
http://web.archive.org/web/20080614004520/http://www.baskinrobbins.com/Nutrition/product.aspx?Category=Beverages&id=BV276
If you are going to grab reddit submissions at least do the foot work and read the comments.
Closed AccountSep 1, 2011
No s**t Sherlock. That's why it's crossed out.
tronbotSep 1, 2011
Yawn
Closed AccountSep 1, 2011
Yawn what? Can't use your head? Figured.
Go back to Reddit, you're unwanted here. Elitist trash.
tronbotSep 1, 2011
It's you that can't use your head or read either apparently. The guy who started the thread asked a question... I answered.
It's dumb ass trolls like you that aren't needed here.
iamthegangsSep 2, 2011
I'm not the one with illiteracy issues.
theonekenAug 31, 2011
That's literally enough calories for almost an entire pound of body fat.
suzillaSep 1, 2011
You say that like it's a bad thing.
alphacubeSep 1, 2011
2600 calories... that's 2600 calories... in a single 32 oz. cup, that you can eat in about 10 minutes, with 208% of the total fat an average healthy person should consume in one day. This is legal?
kenjuraSep 1, 2011
Yes. People should decide what to put in their body. Not the government.
It's called personal accountability.
g8kprSep 1, 2011
Well governments do regulate what people put into their bodies. illegal drugs are banned, smoking is only allowed in certain areas, not to mention the amount of anti-smoking advertising that goes on the packaging. Alcohol (in Ontario) can only be bought in certain stores and is illegal for minors to buy any. Canadian medical care spends millions upon millions treating cancer patients who are there because they are chain smokers. "Personal Accountability" doesn't really mean anything when the rest of society is picking up the tab to keep your sorry ass alive when you put yourself into that position by making poor health choices.
However what's worry some about this product (and similar ones) is that kids don't need permission to purchase it, and kids are less likely to even glance at the "nutritional values" attributed to it. I've seen kids on the bus drinking bottles of coke, energy drinks, and gatoraide on their way to school in the morning. Kids routinely buying drinks like this could be pushing themselves to obesity, which again adds to heart problems, circulatory problems, and all the other health problems that go with obesity. Which in turn will be covered by Health Care. So as I don't agree that the government should be regulating every facite of our lives, when foods that are this outrageously unhealthy, there should be a limit to it.
talonhSep 1, 2011
I'd bet anxiety kills more than this shake ever did.
inukkiSep 1, 2011
i bet ghost stories freak you out, or when there is said to be a haunted room, you'd be afraid, but fear not. don't be afraid of your own shadow, dare to be courageous, seize the day, think happy thoughts, rainbows and sunshine.
inukkiSep 1, 2011
facite, facet?
yeddiggSep 1, 2011
2600 Calories...wow! almost the same number of Diggs the story got the first time it was posted. Sad....
po43292Sep 1, 2011
I don't remember the last time a Digg submission got 2600+ diggs. It's about 1/10 of that for the average top story now.
kangouliusSep 1, 2011
I want one. In me.
iamthegangsSep 2, 2011
And all of the other fags here.. why don't you find something better to do?
bobzilla398Sep 1, 2011
i think its funny how he disregards the bottom with the vitamins and the 80% iron....thats a little high i think
ninhSep 2, 2011
The crustacean bit is used as a coagulant
trythinking1stSep 1, 2011
Crustaceans?
badsyntaxSep 1, 2011
Better yet, how does any company consciously produce something so freaking horrible for you. Its like me making a better shotgun that makes suicides easier for shorter armed people. Its just freaking wrong.
michaimSep 1, 2011
That is today's modern 'Russian Roulette'. The difference being instead of 1:6 chances of getting your head blown off, you have a 1:1 chance of obtaining diabetes.
trevorawrightSep 1, 2011
Is that real? The only one I could find on BR website was a Mint Oreo Shake and it didn't even come close to the nutritional facts here: http://flic.kr/p/aiidxK
theonewhoknowsSep 1, 2011
You'd be better off drinking a cup of vegetable oil.
meccaydnaSep 1, 2011
what is this, the epicmealtime shake?
ieatskunkSep 1, 2011
Ok, so share it with someone....or four.
SEOlsen37Sep 1, 2011
So I could drink 13 of these instead of 1 glass of Orange Juice and get all the Vitamin C I need for the day. That's a no-brainer!
Tenken89Sep 1, 2011
80% Iron nice atleast you wont die with anemia.
slanerushSep 1, 2011
I would do the calories if it was the best shake ever but it probably isn't that good, it's just probably really, really sweet.
phychSep 1, 2011
This better have bacon in it.
xaervagonSep 1, 2011
Make sure your health insurance paid up prior to ordering.
marcglezSep 1, 2011
WTF